SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ori) 6

High Court Of Orissa
G. B. PATTANAIK, V. GOPALASWAMY
M/S.SHRI LAXMI TRADING CO. - Appellant
Versus
ADDL.DIST.MAGISTRATE (C.S.S.), ROURKELA - Respondent
O. J. C.  398  Of  1988
Decided On : 01/13/1989

Advocates Appeared:
A.PATNAIK, L.Panigrahi, R.K.Patra, S.C.LAL

Mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - STORAGE CONTROL - CONFISCATION - MENS REA - ESSENTIAL PRE-CONDITION - PULSES, EDIBLE OILSEEDS AND EDIBLE OILS (STORAGE CONTROL) ORDER, 1977 - ORISSA ESSENTIAL FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF HOARDING AND REQUISITIONING OF STOCKS) ORDER, 1974 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 254.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a dealer in foodgrains, was found in possession of edible oils and pulses in excess of the permissible limit under the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (Central Order). The petitioner claimed that it was an importer and, therefore, entitled to possess a higher quantity of pulses and edible oils under the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974 (State Order). The Collector ordered confiscation of the seized stocks, and the State Government upheld the order on appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Central Order prevailed over the State Order and that the petitioner was not entitled to possess a higher quantity of pulses and edible oils as an importer under the State Order. The Court also held that mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and that the Collector and the State Government had not considered the question of presence or absence of mens rea of the petitioner.

Issues: 1. Whether the Central Order prevailed over the State Order. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to possess a higher quantity of pulses and edible oils as an importer under the State Order. 3. Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Order specifically made for storage of pulses, edible oilseeds and edible oils does not conceive of an "importer". Restrictions on possession of pulses and edible oilseeds as provided in Cl. 4 of the Central Order must operate in respect of a "dealer" as defined in Cl. 2 (f) of the Central Order. 2. Notwithstanding Clause 6 of the Central Order, the petitioner cannot claim to be entitled to possess higher quantities of pulses and edible oil as an importer on the basis of the State Order, since the State Order so far as it relates to edible oilseeds and edible oils must he taken to be repealed in view of the Central Order. 3. Mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The submission of Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, that S. 10c of the Essential Commodities Act presumes mens rea is not of much significance.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of confiscation and the appellate order and remitted the matter to the Collector for re-consideration and re-disposal in accordance with law.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE order of confiscation passed by the Collector (opposite party 1) and the order of the State Government (opposite party 2) affirming the said order in appeal are being impugned in this writ application by the petitioners. Petitioner 1 is admittedly a dealer of foodgrains carrying on its business in Rourkela and petitioner No. 2 is a partner of petitioner 1-firm.

( 2 ) THE Inspector of Supplies conducted a raid on the business premises of the petitioner 1 on 26-8-1987 and found that the petitioner was in possession of 300. 60 quintals of edible oils and 1469. 53 quintals of pulses and edible oilseeds. The Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Rourkela, accordingly submitted a report to the Collector pointing out the tact that the petitioner, having been in possession in excess of the permissible limit of edible oils and edible oilseeds as provided under the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "central Order"), has contravened the said provisions. A prosecution report was accordingly filed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the seized-stocks should not be confiscated. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed its reply stating therein that it was an importer, having imported pulses and edible oils from outside the State of Orissa, as provided under the Orissa Essential Foodstuffs (Prevention of Hoarding and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "state Order") and, therefore, the stocks in question recovered from the possession of the petitioner were within the permissible limits for an importer and accordingly, the petitioner had not contravened any of the provisions of any Control Order. The Additional District Magistrate exercising the powers of Collector rejected the petitioner's plea that it was entitled to have 8,000 quintals in possession as an importer and held that admittedly the petitioner having been found to be in possession of pulses and edible oils in excess of the limits permitted under the Central Order had contravened the said provisions. Accordingly, he directed confiscation of the stocks in question. the said order of the Additional District Magistrate has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioner carried an appeal to the State Government reiterating its stand before the original authority, but the State Government having rejected the appeal by order dt. 27-1-1988, annexed as Annexure-10, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

( 3 ) TWO contentions have been raised by Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in assailing the order of confiscation :- (i) The petitioner being an importer within the meaning of the State Order, for whom the permissible limit of possession is 8,000 quintals, and the said concept of an importer though not specifically provided for in the Central Order, but having been retained in view of Clause-6 of the Central Order, the petitioner was entitled to have in its possession 8,000 quintals of pulses and edible oils and, therefore, there has been no contravention of the Control Order, and (ii) In any view of the matter, "mens rea" being the essential pre-condition for passing an order of confiscation under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodition Act, and the said mens rea having been absent, the order of confiscation is liable to be struck down. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri Patra, on the other hand, contends that the Central Order having been made specifically for the purpose of storage control, with effect from the date of enforcement of the Central Order, the State Order cannot have any application, in view of Art. 254 of the Constitution. Since the concept of "importer" is not there in the Central Order, Cl. 6 of the Central Order cannot bring in the concept of "importer" and therefore, the petitioner's c


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top